Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 334-340

  Facey, Karen ^a   Boivin, Antoine ^b   Gracia, Javier ^c   Hansen, Helle Ploug ^d   Lo Scalzo, Alessandra ^e   Mossman, Jean ^f   Single, Ann ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c Health Technology Assessment Unit UETS   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^e National Agency for Regional Health Services   (Italy)

^f HTAi Interest Group HTAi 1200   (Canada)

Author keywords

Patient participation; Patient centered care; Qualitative research; Systematic review; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;

DECISION MAKING; HEALTH; HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY;

RATING;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; PATIENT CARE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REVIEW; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT SATISFACTION;

HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 78049449675     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000395     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:239-251.
2. Bailey KD. Methods of social research. New York: The Free Press; 1982.
3. Barroso J, Gollop CJ, Sandelowski M, et al. The challenges of searching for and retrieving qualitative studies. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25:153-178.
4. Bridges JFP, Jones C. Patient based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:30-35.
5. Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, et al. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006;6:27-44.
6. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, et al. Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000008.
7. Gagnon M-P, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, et al. Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:54.
8. Gauvin F-P. Public involvement in health technology assessment agencies: A comparative analysis of Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom [PhD thesis]. Hamilton: McMaster University; 2008.
9. Hailey D. Consumer involvement in HTA. Alberta: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research HTA Unit; 2005. http://www.ihe.ca/documents/HTA- FR21.pdf (accessed May 27, 2009).
10. HaileyD,NordwallM. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:497-499.
11. Health Equality Europe. Understanding health technology assessment. Europe: Health Equality Europe; 2008 http://www. htai.org/index.php?id=85 (accessed May 27, 2009).
12. Hewlett S, DeWit M, Richards P, et al. Patients and professionals as research partners: Challenges, practicalities and benefits. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55:676-680.
13. Kristensen FB, Sigmund H. Health technology assessment handbooK. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment, National Board of Health; 2007.
14. Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008;337:a288.
15. Lampe K,MäkeläM. HTA core model for medical and surgical interventions 1.0R. - Section 3.6 Ethical Analysis.Copenhagen: EUnetHTA Work Package 4; 2008. http://www.eunethta. net/upload/WP4/Final%20Deliverables/ HTA%20Core%20 Model%20for%20Medical%20and%20Surgical%20Interventions% 201%200r.pdf (accessed March 29, 2010).
16. Lee A, Sinding LS. A review of organizational and patientrelated assessments in HTAs published by INAHTA members. Dan Health Technol Assess. 2007;9:2.
17. Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Demers-Payette O, Boivin A. Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do wewant to know from publics? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:2002-2009.
18. Malterud K. Qualitative research: Standards, challenges and guidelines. Lancet. 2001;358:483-488.
19. Nicholas DB, Globerman J, Antle BJ, McNeill T, Lach LM. Processes of metastudy: A study of psychosocial adaptation to childhood chronic health conditions. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5:1-10. www.ualberta.ca/iiqm/backissues/5- 1/pdf/nicholas.pdf (accessed May 27, 2009).
20. Noblitt GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. California: Sage Publications; 1988.
21. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Draft report from ESRC Methods Programme. University of Lancaster: Institute for Health Research; 2004.
22. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30:251-290. http://sth. sagepub.com/cgi/content/ abstract/30/2/251 (accessed June 10, 2009).
23. Street J, Braunack-Mayer A, Facey K, et al. Virtual community consultation? Using the literature and weblogs to link community perspectives and health technology assessment. Health Expect. 2008;11:189-200.
24. Telford R, Boote J, Cooper C. What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study. Health Expect. 2004;7:209-220.
25. Webler T. "Right" discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardsticK. In: Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P, eds. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 1995.